Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Ups and Downs of MySQL AB

Posted by Hemos on from the pick-the-battles-to-fight dept.

Wannabe Code Monkey writes "Forbes has an article about a recent MySQL deal with SCO and the reaction from the open source community: "It's been a rough week for Marten Mickos, the chief executive of open source database maker MySQL AB. First his most dreaded rival, Oracle acquired a company that supplies a key piece of MySQL's software, a move that could make life difficult for Uppsala, Sweden-based MySQL, which has the most popular open source database. If that wasn't bad enough, Mickos is being denounced as a traitor by noisy fanatics in the open source software community because last month he dared to make a deal with SCO Group, a company reviled by fans of Linux and other open source software.""

3 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Confused about licensing by BVis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If taking SCO's money is what keeps the product viable, and if the final product is still F/OSS, who really gives a hoot? SCO's money spends just as easy as anything else, and the OSS community hasn't lost anything.

    We don't live in a world of moral absolutes. Businesses sometimes have to be practical at the expense of muddying the moral waters. I'm sure that if they could have avoided even taking SCO's calls they would have, but taking the money enables them to be a going concern.

    Besides, the more SCO spends, the faster they will inevitably go out of business, so that can only be a good thing, right?

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  2. Re:Confused about licensing by team99parody · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The problem is that MySQL's business depended on a dual-licensing model where they selling a proprietary-licensed version of MySQL. Sure, they could keep using the GPL'd InnoDB in the GPL'd version of MySQL; but they can not incorporate the GPL'd InnoDB in the proprietary MySQL.

    Ironically, if Oracle insisted that future supported versions of InnoDB only be released as a GPL'd work - it could be one of the greates things for MySQL-the-GPL'd-product and one of the worst things to MySQL-the-company.

  3. Guys please... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    MySQL AB (the company behind MySQL) will just modify some code to add SCO Unix support. I mean, MySQL has windows support, Apache has Windows support, and Windows is "teh evil", so?

    A much more important matter is Oracle buying InnoBase. (hint: InnoBase != MySQL AB). But then again, InnoDB is GPL. So, as long as they're GPL, we can still use them for GPL products.

    Now the REALLY scary thing is this dual licensing stuff and MySQL requiring you to buy a license for MySQL if your product is not GPL. I'm still confused regarding the legal interpretation of it, this is a very scary issue, and the /. crowd remains silent about this. So, they're not scandalized about this dual licensing issue and the touchy circumstances , and what "linking" means regarding this (any legal info would be appreciated). But oh, MySQL modifies some code to add SCO Unix support, and the world as we know it is disappearing suddenly?.

    I don't give a **** of what MySQL AB does with SCO (the GPL won't change, will it?). What worries me is the future of InnoDB and if i'll be able to use a MySQL client in my non-gpl'ed, for-profit (i.e. to earn a living) C++ or Python software without having to fear lawsuits from MySQL AB...

    In fact, I think there should be an article on this subject (not that I've STFW'ed, but links would be appreciated).